The Radical Spectrum: Environmentalists
Push the Envelope to Push Their Cause

by David Almasi

While most of America came together after September 11, the
political fringe remains at odds with the rest of society. Our
new realities, however, make it easier to spot their extremism.

Take, for example, Karen Davis. Davis is president of the animal
rights group United Poultry Concerns (UPC). She's leading a campaign
against the California fast-food chain Carl's Jr., which serves
chicken strips, because the company's television ads portray a
group of restaurant executives examining a chicken in search of
the "nuggets." A UPC release likens the farcical examination
to rape, proclaiming "the ad portrays chickens in a degrading
and demeaning manner."1

But Davis doesn't stop at farce. In a letter to Vegan Voice
magazine, Davis expressed utter contempt for the victims of September
11. She wrote: "I think it is speciesist to think that the
September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was a greater tragedy
than what millions of chickens endured that day and what they
endure every day because they cannot defend themselves against
the concerted human appetites arrayed against them."2

The most disturbing aspect of the Davis letter is that it was
a complaint that the infamous Princeton University ethicist Peter
Singer believes it is not speciesist to think the September 11
attack was worse than eating chicken. Singer, who is credited
with founding the animal right movement,3
is notorious for his belief that parents should be allowed a 28-day
period after birth in which they can choose to kill their children.4 Singer thinks people with debilitating diseases
like Down Syndrome, cystic fibrosis and Alzheimer's lessen the
well-being of the rest of humanity, and that their elimination
benefits society.5 In her letter,
Davis outflanked Singer in her extremism. Now Singer is a moderate.

Animal rights activists are at the fringe of the environmental
movement, but the radicalism of "mainstream" environmental
groups goes largely unnoticed. An extremist agenda lies behind
the "save the planet" mantra.

Global warming is one of the environmental movement's major
issues even though there is no conclusive evidence that mankind's
activities are warming the planet, or that such warming would
be harmful. This hasn't stopped environmental groups from advocating
regulations on domestic industries that would raise the average
American household's energy costs by $1,740 per year and throw
millions of Americans out of work.6

Environmentalist concerns usually pit man against nature, and
man is always the problem. As in the example of Karen Davis and
Peter Singer, the cries about faux crises such as global warming
gain credibility when they are placed next to more radical activity.

David Brower, the Sierra Club's first executive director, explained
this extremist drift. He told E magazine: "The Sierra Club
made the Nature Conservancy look reasonable. Then I founded Friends
of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded
Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth look reasonable.
Earth First! now makes us look reasonable. We're still looking
for a group to come along and make Earth First! look reasonable."7

Brower made this statement in 1990, and a more extremist group
has come along to "moderate" Earth First! - a group
that first gained notoriety for driving spikes into trees to injure
loggers. The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) is credited with over
30 acts of domestic terrorism costing millions of dollars in damage
over the past six years. On September 8, just three days before
the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, ELF claimed credit
for an arson attack on a McDonald's restaurant in Tucson, Arizona.8 They encourage firebomb attacks on their
web site, and provide a downloadable manual to teach willing followers
how to build them.9

Pushing the political envelope helped environmentalists achieve
extreme goals by making the extreme look moderate. But, since
September 11, the previously accepted radicalism is no longer
appropriate. The rest of America has undergone a reality check,
and it's time to use this newfound rationality to craft a sensible
and sane environmental policy.

Let's consider oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge to relieve our dependence on foreign oil. Let's create
an endangered species policy that protects both animals and human
interests. Those are some real radical ideas that help our nation.

And let's finally figure out where on a chicken you'd find
the nuggets.

# # #

David W. Almasi is the executive director of The National Center
for Public Policy Research, a non-partisan Washington, D.C. think
tank. He can be reached at [email protected].